One could hardly have imagined a more unsightly way to mark the first anniversary of Joyce Echaquan’s death, thus setting the tone for the first National Truth and Reconciliation Day.
We knew that relatives and members of the community of Joyce Echaquan were disappointed by the Legault government’s lack of commitment in the fight against the discrimination suffered by Aboriginals in the health system. We also learned that the Echaquan family had been offended by the announcement of the creation of a biodiversity reserve in honor of Joyce – the hasty nature of the thing, the fact of not having waited for their signal before d ‘go forward.
The idea that it is possible to force homage while ignoring the essential is in the image of everything that surrounds “reconciliation” as we approach it today. However, Prime Minister Legault has exceeded all expectations by positioning himself as a victim of the political agenda of the oppositions, while he insists on blocking the adoption of Joyce’s Principle, which is nevertheless at the heart of the demands made by the family and the community since this appalling death.
The Prime Minister’s attitude could be classified under the banner of ordinary partisan pettiness, if only it was not so representative of the (in) action of his government in its relations with the aboriginal communities of Quebec.
Minister Ian Lafrenière was pleased to have at least partially implemented 68 of the 142 calls to action of the Viens commission report, two years after its tabling. We are moving in the right direction, he announced, promising that the living conditions of the Aboriginals “improve”. The results of the initiatives resulting from the Viens commission would however be very modest. According to the committee’s monitoring committee, the measures adopted are not much more than “anecdotal” and only partially respond to the recommendations. Only five calls to action would have led to measures deemed satisfactory.
It is no coincidence that the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador (AFNQL), Ghislain Picard, wanted to speak directly to the population to fight against the racism and discrimination suffered by Aboriginals, exasperated as he is by the systematic denial emanating from government authorities.
The denial is systematic and constant, there is no doubt about it, at least when it comes to this government. But this denial also has deep historical roots. The bickering surrounding the relentless rejection of Joyce’s Principle thus takes on a well-known tune, repeated many times in the implementation of the colonial ambition to erase indigenous peoples.
Last week, a report from the show Investigation looked at the forced sterilization of black and native women here in Quebec – not that of the 1950s, but that of the 2010s. The testimonies are as violent as they are heartbreaking. Women report having been manipulated, humiliated and threatened, sometimes during childbirth, in order to consent to sterilization. The worst racist stereotypes about parental incapacity were used to justify the need for intervention.
In the background of the testimonies, one saw hovering the nauseating specter of the fear of the bellies of non-white women and the colonial obsession for the control of the body of the women.
In the wake of the report byInvestigation, moreover, several people have been found to point out that they initially greeted with skepticism the idea that we can subject women to forced sterilization today in Quebec. Isolated cases perhaps, but not a recurring practice, come on! This disbelief – a kind of well-intentioned rejection – is no accident: it has been cultivated over time to cover up the violence and attempts at erasure suffered by Indigenous peoples.
This persistence of a presumption unfavorable to the existence of discriminations distilled in discourses, practices and institutions otherwise intended for the well-being of the population is the product of a long history. And that is precisely what is at work in the rejection of Joyce’s Principle and the bickering over systemic racism.
This expression, I agree, has been emptied of its meaning by dint of partisan negotiations. Moreover, it is neither rare nor new that the words of the protest are thus neutralized. Still, in the case of François Legault, it is not just a semantic matter. In the distortions he inflicts on words, in his stubbornness in saying that he has “never seen” a “system” of discrimination in place, the Prime Minister forbids that we name and that we splint on what is yet in plain view.
Seeing Joyce Echaquan die under a shower of insults, hearing the testimonies of Indigenous women and men poorly received in the health system and refusing despite everything to commit to a clear principle, it’s not just a matter of words. It is an unequivocal stance on the reality that these words designate.
As for Quebec’s refusal to mark National Truth and Reconciliation Day, whatever one thinks of the impact of such a measure, that once again gives us the true picture.